Search form

Stronger Military, but at What Cost?

Throughout the presidential campaign, Donald Trump consistently
called for more defense spending to rebuild an American military he
characterized as “in shambles” and “a disaster.”

Since taking office, he has said increased military spending is
“more important” than balancing the budget. In his address to
Congress last week, Trump made it official, promising “one of the
largest increases in national defense spending in history.”

Such a path is unwise and ignores the council of military and
national security leaders.

As early as 2010, the nation’s senior ranking military officer,
Adm. Mike Mullen, referred to the nation’s debt as “the most
significant threat to our national security.” At the time, the
nation’s debt burden was 90 percent of GDP, and the Congressional
Budget Office labeled the country’s fiscal future as
“daunting.”

This past May, 22 prior secretaries of defense and other
national security heavyweights, including President Richard Nixon’s
secretary of state, Henry Kissinger, and President Jimmy Carter’s
national security adviser, Zbigniew Brezinski, signed a bipartisan
statement that read, in part, we “believe that our long-term debt
is the single greatest threat to our national security.” By then,
the debt had ballooned another 15 percentage points to 105 percent
of GDP.

The future looks much worse. The CBO estimates the nation’s debt
will increase by more than $9 trillion — and another 12
percentage points — over the next 10 years.

On paper, Trump’s budget
will offset the increases in defense spending with cuts elsewhere,
but the numbers (not to mention history) strongly suggest that is
unlikely.

On paper, Trump’s budget will offset the increases in defense
spending with cuts elsewhere, but the numbers (not to mention
history) strongly suggest that is unlikely.

Defense spending already accounts for half of all discretionary
spending, Trump has promised to leave Social Security and Medicare
untouched, and it’s unlikely Trump will cut from veterans’
services, infrastructure, or justice.

That leaves a shrinking pool of $388 billion from which to
offset increases in defense. Additionally it ignores the
half-trillion dollar deficit already projected for 2017 and his
call for $1 trillion in infrastructure spending.

This is alarming from a national security perspective because a
nation’s military is only as strong as its economy.

Large and technologically advanced militaries require vibrant
and innovative economies. Crushing levels of national debt, on the
other hand, stifle economic growth.

The Soviet Union ignored this maxim during the Cold War, only to
disintegrate under the weight of an oversized military that its
anemic economy could not sustain. And “unsustainable,” is precisely
how the CBO, a nonpartisan agency established by Congress, has
consistently characterized the nation’s future fiscal path.

Moreover, increasing defense spending today is unnecessary.

The United States continues to field the most dominant military
the world has ever known, driven by both the caliber of its people
and the substantial financial investment made each year by the
taxpayers.

True, the military has been stretched thin by uninterrupted war
over the past 15 years and budget caps have affected readiness and
modernization. However, given how much the United States spends on
defense relative to the rest of the world, it is clear that
spending more money is not the answer.

The U.S. already spends roughly $600 billion per year, which
accounts for 36 percent of the world’s annual military
expenditures. Potential adversaries such as China, Russia, and Iran
account for 13, 4, and .6 percent respectively.

Even the military opposes many of the specific proposals for
increased spending. Trump’s call to expand U.S. nuclear capability
flies in the face of Pentagon requests simply to modernize the
existing nuclear arsenal, which itself is projected to cost $1
trillion. Similarly, Congress’ unwillingness to heed military
leaders’ requests to consolidate and close under-utilized
installations represents an inefficient use of DoD resources.

Most fundamentally, contrary to Trump’s drumbeat of dark
messages and his assertion that Islamic State represents “an
existential threat to our country,” Americans are safer than at any
point in the past 50 years.

Data from the FBI show murder rates over the past five years at
their lowest since the early 1960’s. Overall violent crime rates
reflect a similar drop. And, as a researcher from the University of
North Carolina recently noted, Islamist-inspired terrorists have
carried out less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the 230,000 murders
in America over the past 15 years.

In light of the dangers of the debt, Trump and Congress should
chart a more cautious fiscal path on defense. A good place to start
looking for savings is the war on terrorism. The wars in the Middle
East have already cost at least $1.7 trillion since 9/11 and have
led directly to the readiness and procurement challenges facing the
military.

Reducing America’s footprint abroad would not only save
tremendous amounts of money, it would also encourage U.S. allies to
step up their security efforts, another of Trump’s priorities.

If Trump and Congress don’t find a way to combat the national
debt today, the United States will find itself at greater risk
tomorrow.

Trevor Thrall is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and associate professor at the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University. Erik Goepner, a retired Air Force colonel, is currently a doctoral candidate at the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University.